Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock.

CAPTAIN BOURNE, the Deputy-Chairman. of Ways and Means, at the request of Mr. SPEAKER, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (County of Holland Joint Hospital District) Bill.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Huntingdonshire Joint Hospital District) Bill.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (South Chilterns Joint Small-pox Hospital District) Bill.

Read the Third time, and passed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Guisborough Joint Small-pox Hospital District) Bill.

Sea Fisheries Provisional Order Bill.

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time upon Monday next.

NATIONAL GALLERY (OVERSEAS LOANS) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 39.]

SALTBURN AND MARSKE-BY-THE-SEA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.*

Orders of the Day — HERRING INDUSTRY BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Establishment of Herring industry Board.)

11.5 a.m.

Sir JOHN WALLACE: I beg to move in page 1, line 17, after "industry," to insert:
one of whom shall be a representative of the canning industry.
Up to the present time no account has been taken of the important canning industry in connection with this Bill, and no representative has been selected to look after the important interests involved on the Herring Board. It must be remembered that this branch of the industry is in the process of considerable development and at the moment something like £1,000,000 capital is involved. The canning industry is anxious to develop an export trade, and so far has succeeded to a considerable extent. Surely it is elementary that all possible interests connected with the herring industry should be represented on the board and it should be remembered that the interests of the canning industry and the producers and salesmen are not always the same. Sometimes they run counter to each other. In 1933, for example there was a dispute between the fishermen and the salesmen and as a consequence no herring were sold for canning purposes, during that period, and the canners suffered a severe loss. Although at that time the canning industry offered the fishermen 25s. per cran, that is 10s. above the ordinary price, they could procure no herring because of the dispute and were as I have stated involved in heavy losses. The close season for herring also deprives the canning industry of the opportunity to procure herring of the particular kind they require, and very often they have to purchase at higher prices herring which are not so suitable for their particular industry.
I should like to know whether there is any valid reason why the fish canning industry should not be represented on the board. I am not an expert in the herring fishing industry, but as I have been to
the North of Scotland for many years spending my time largely on the Moray Firth, I have learned something about the subject; how wide are the ramifications of the industry and what a fine and deserving body of men are engaged in it. I think the inclusion of a representative of the canning industry on the board would be for the general benefit of the industry and would be only an act of elementary justice to an important section of the trade. No branch of the herring industry employs a higher ratio of labour, and, of course, that reacts favourably on the tin trade, whose products are used in the packing of herring. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will consider this matter from the point of view of simple justice and allow the interests of the fish canning industry to be properly represented. Let me say that I have not the slightest personal financial interest in the matter and that I am solely animated by a desire to see that justice is done to an important section of the industry.

11.10 a.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir ARNOLD WILSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
I support the proposal on the ground stated by the hon. Member, but also for further reasons. My experience abroad convinces me that there is a far better prospect for English herring when they are well packed in tins than in any of the other forms which were discussed in Committee. I think also that there is a good prospect for a development of the tin industry. The consumption of tinned foods has rapidly grown in this country, and the same is true all over Asia. Every prosperous family wants to have more of the appetising products of Scotland, and the only way in which they can be obtained cheaply and in good condition is by packing them in tins. The canning industry in this country is prosperous and developing, and deserves the fullest consideration by the Herring Board. Its interests are diverse and somewhat divergent from those of the herring industry as a whole and, therefore, I submit that we should be well advised to give them representation on the board itself.

11.12 a.m.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: I desire to support the Amendment. I agree with what has been said by my two
hon. Friends, but I would point out that they seem to be confining their attention to fish which is packed in tins. There are other ways of treating fish. There is the way in which the Germans do it. They buy their herring here and after treating them sell them to English consumers in small barrels, with vegetables, oils, tomatoes and spices. They are put up also in bottles. I think we should have on the Board a representative of the canning industry who is also conversant with the other ways in which herring are treated.

11.13 a. m.

Mr. LOFTUS: I sympathise with what has been said by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment. There is an enormous future for the canning industry in the export markets as well as in the home market, but I hope the House will not accept the Amendment, for this one reason. In appointing this first board we must not narrow the selection, we must have the widest possible area and choose the most capable men we can find. Once we start representation of sectional interests, there are at least ten different sections of the trade—I believe there are twelve—you will have demands from all these other sections for representation.

Sir A. WILSON: Why not?

Mr. LOFTUS: Because you cannot admit twelve different representatives when there are only five places on the board. You will also have a demand for a Labour representative, and quite rightly. It was on these grounds that the Amendment was not pressed in Committee, and I hope that the House will not support it.

11.14 a.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: I agree with the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus). If you once start devoting a special place to each sectional interest it will be extremely difficult for the Minister to find the best men. This is not an enormous trade, and it will be difficult to get five men who are prepared to give the necessary time to the service of the board. If you get special representatives you will not get that dispassionate consideration which is desired and, indeed, you may have a war between the canners and the curers on the board itself. I hope that
the Minister will adhere to his determination not to allow sectional interests to be represented.

11.15 a.m.

Dr. ADDISON: Hon. Members will remember that we discussed this point in Committee and on the assurance of the Minister that he would give fair consideration to the matter we did not press our Amendment that the interests of the consumers and of labour should be represented on the board. Once you start constituting a board by sectional interests there is no end to it, and you do not get the right kind of board.

Sir J. WALLACE: I should be very glad if we could have a definition of "the remaining five members."

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I am sure, that nay hon. Friend the Member of Dunfermline (Sir J. Wallace) will not take it amiss if I say that the Amendment would transform the Board altogether and change it from a general board into a board representative of sectional interests. That is rather a big point, and I do not think it would be fair to decide it upon the inclusion of one or other section of the industry, however worthy that section might be. If it is to be a sectional board it must be a board on which all interested sections are represented, a board which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) said, would consist of ten or twelve trade members. Then every issue would have to be fought out by the Board itself. I beg my hon. Friend not to press his amendment on this account. The interests of the canning industry are very great, and the importance of canning to the future of the herring trade as a whole is perhaps even greater because, as has been said, the chance of getting herring to the far distant sources of consumption to which we wish to penetrate does mean that we have to get a curing process possibly a great deal more effective than any curing process of which we previously had knowledge. I was very interested in the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel), who referred not merely to canning but to bottling and other means of preservation and urged that it was necessary to keep an open mind.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) spoke of even remote regions of Asia which used the herring and had a great desire for the products of Scotland. That was a very pleasant compliment coming from one who could not be accused of any special desire, either because of his constituency or on personal grounds, to press the products of Scotland against those of England. But it is true that the board must represent the interests of the industry. If it does not do so the whole experiment of the board will fail. In particular the three independent members to be appointed by the Secretary of State and myself will have a special duty to see that sectional interests do not prevail. If we can agree, therefore, that it should not be a sectional board but a general board, and that the interests of new sections in this industry must be considered, they can better be considered by the three general members than by any ad hoc members put on to represent the interests of one or other particular section. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.

Sir J. WALLACE: In view of my right hon. Friend's statement and my understanding that there is no other section of the trade represented on the board, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. ELLIOT: I beg to move, in page 2, line 41, to leave out "shall".
This amendment and subsequent amendments are moved to comply with a promise that I gave to the right hon. Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) and others during the Committee stage. They raised a, point of substance, that, if it was found impracticable to prepare a scheme for the election of the board, the fact should be made public, and an opportunity for debate in this House or at least public discussion should arise. This amendment and subsequent amendments require the board, if it finds the making of a scheme impracticable, to make a report to the Ministers, and the Ministers are required to publish such report so that the reasons which actuated the board will be available for those who are interested.

Dr. ADDISON: I must thank the Minister for having put these amendments on the Paper. I still have a little misgiving that the board might find the making of a scheme impracticable, but there does riot seem to be a method in the Bill whereby others might have a scheme prepared. However, we have to proceed by trial and error.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 2, line 42, after "purpose," insert:
(in which case the Board shall make a report to the Ministers, who shall publish the report in such manner as they think fit) the Board shall.

In page 3, line 19, leave out "in every year," and insert:
not later than the expiration of three months from the last day of each financial year of the Board.

In line 20, after "Board," insert "during that year."

In line 21, leave out from "Parliament," to end of Clause.—[Mr. Elliot.]

CLAUSE 2.—(Power of Board to make scheme with a view to reorganisation, development and regulation.)

Mr. ELLIOT: I beg to move, in page 4, line 15, to leave out "(including provisions for exemption)."
When the Bill was in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) moved an amendment to ensure that the Ministers should have power if they wished to make any modifications in the scheme submitted to them, of including provisions for exemption from the operation of a scheme of any counties, districts or ports, together with any conditions qualifying such exemption. It was pointed out that the sub-section of the clause, without these words "(including provisions for exemption)" included, would already enable the Ministers to amend the scheme in such a manner if they thought fit, and my hon. Friend's attention was drawn to the provisions of Clause 3, paragraph (f), which enable the board when preparing a scheme, to include such provisions for exemption.
Anyone who looks at the problem will see that it would be impossible for the board to prepare a scheme for regulating the herring industry without making provisions for exemptions, and in fact the
Duncan Commission drew special attention to this in its report. I agreed that the words now proposed to be left out would be the subject of reconsideration before the Report stage. It is provided that Ministers, in considering a scheme submitted to them and any objections to it, shall specially consider the question, whether the scheme contains adequate provisions for exemptions. As I have pointed out, the working of the clause without the words now proposed to be left out would clearly enable the Ministers to give consideration to this problem. We have taken the advice of officials and of departmental officers and they confirm us in the view that we expressed in Committee.
If any amendments is to be inserted—and I realise the anxiety of my hon. Friend that the point of exemption should be specifically brought to the notice of those responsible—I suggest that the House should adopt the wording which stands on the paper in my name. That will enable the House itself to draw the attention of Ministers, when the provisions are being considered, to the wording of the Act and to point out the special responsibility which is laid upon Ministers in this respect. It will enable them, under the terms of the statute, to draw ministerial attention to the provisions for exemption in a way which I think would be even stronger than is indicated in the actual words on the paper.

11.26 a.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: When I moved an amendment on this subject in Committee I fully realised that the matter was already covered in the Bill. My motive was that explained in the concluding portion of his speech by my right hon. Friend. I wished to draw attention of the Ministers concerned to the possibility—indeed very likely the necessity—of exempting certain areas from any schemes which the board might submit. I was not very well satisfied with the amendment which was suggested in Committee by the Government but I think this proposal shows a considerable improvement and I beg to thank my right hon Friend for having moved this amendment which I, personally, find satisfactory.

11.27 a.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I wish to support what has been said by the hon. member who shares with me the honour of representing some part of the county of Cornwall. He knows as well as I do the apprehensions which have been felt in that part of the country as to the interference which might arise in connection with this Measure. We are anxious that a Bill which offers us no advantages, as far as we can see, should not bring in its train any ultimate disadvantages to us, as we have troubles enough already in that part of the world. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman has met those apprehensions by the introduction of this amendment calls for our gratitude.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I would also like to say that some of those for whom I speak may have certain matters which will call for consideration in this connection, and I am very gratified that this proposal has been accepted by the Government.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 17, at the end, insert:
In considering the scheme and any objections the Ministers shall specially consider whether the scheme makes adequate provision for exemptions in proper cases."—[Mr.Elliot.]

11.29 a.m.

Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move in page 4 line 28, after "approved," to insert "either with or without modification."
I recognise that this Amendment raises a point of considerable importance. I move it partly because of the Amendment just accepted by the House and partly because of the exceptional character of the schemes which may arise under the Bill. I wish to thank the Minister for having met the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard) with regard to exemptions and having put in words which will make sure that the exemptions, whatever they are, will be set out in detail in the scheme. Under this Bill we may be confronted with a, scheme, prepared by a board in connection with which there is no element of election by the members of the industry. There will be this difference from other schemes of the same kind—that all
the board will have been required to do will have been to carry out what has been described as a strange, new experiment in democracy, in that they will have to obtain the prevailing opinion of the industry. In whatever way they may see fit to do so and however they may be satisfied, the fact remains that you may get a scheme in connection with which there has been no element of election at all but only an ascertainment of the prevailing opinion of the industry. There is a substantial difference in that respect from the other marketing scheme and although I recognise that the Minister himself will have ample opportunity beforehand of making alterations in a scheme and that his alterations will no doubt be in accord with such representations as may be made to him, still, as the matter stands at present Parliament itself is shut out from making any alterations in a scheme. In order to elicit from the Minister his opinion on that point I move the Amendment. It may involve an alteration in the Standing Orders, and that being so, I would not wish to press it at this stage but I should want an assurance that the House will be fully informed of the reasons why the Minister has or has not made any alterations which may be suggested in a scheme submitted by him to Parliament.

11.31 a.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: I can give my right hon. Friend an assurance on the point as to whether this amendment would or would not involve an amendment of the Standing Orders. I am afraid it would. In fact I am afraid it would involve an amendment of the British Constitution and that is a rather formidable undertaking, especially if we wish as I think we all do wish, that the Bill should come into operation as early as possible. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and indeed the House, to consider the deadlock which might arise in this case if either House made an amendment to which it could not get the other House to consent. There is an elaborate constitutional procedure for regulating such disputes in the case of amendments to a Bill, but there is no procedure whatever for regulating such disputes in the case of a resolution of both Houses. Consequently, while I agree that it is desirable that the will
of Parliament should be expressed upon these matters and that Members should feel that their expressions of opinion are not merely beating the air but are definitely going to have an influence upon the schemes finally submitted, I am sure that the responsibility of accepting or rejecting a scheme as a whole is the point upon which we must take our stand. I would specially ask the House to accept that principle for this Measure and the scheme under it because, in this case, speed is of the essence of the contract and I should feel very uneasy if it went forward that amendments might be made by either House, that discussions might have to take place between the two Houses, that schemes might have to be withdrawn, altered, cut about, sent to the Board and then re-submitted. We should run the risk of a delay of weeks, if not months, which might easily stultify the real intention of Parliament with regard to this industry and this measure. We desire that the steps which we are about to take should be carried through in time to come into effective operation for this season's fishing. Therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment.

11.34 a.m.

Mr. TINKER: I wish to say something as to procedure bearing on this amendment. There is, as the right hon. Gentleman said, a big constitutional issue involved. At the same time this is a matter to which Parliament ought to pay, some attention in view of the recent trouble which we had in connection with another Bill and certain regulations. We were not allowed to make amendments in that case. We were told that we had to accept what was submitted to us, with the result which all hon. Members know. The matter was taken out of the hands of Parliament and we had serious trouble afterwards. I do not like to be told that a Bill is necessary and that if we attempt to modify or alter it we shall be holding up something which is urgently wanted. That is asking Members to forgo an important right on the ground that something is being given to the people. I think this Bill is welcomed by everyone, and that is why I object that, when a Bill is a good Bill and we bring forward some amendment which would improve it, if we insist on it, the Government say the Bill will be held up and possibly destroyed. Then afterwards we may be
told, "Oh, you agreed to that". I trust that these matters will be looked into more closely before we get to this stage, of a Bill being on the point of acceptance, and then it being found necessary to tell the House that if a particular amendment is insisted upon, it may hold up the whole thing.

11.36 a.m.

Dr. ADDISON: I anticipated that the Minister would make the reply he did make, but I moved the Amendment to draw attention to the exceptional character of the proceedings before the submission of this scheme. I take it that the Minister's assurance at the beginning really means that he will submit to Parliament, in some appropriate form, a full and complete statement of the case, including what alterations he has made and the grounds for them. It is very necessary that it should be set out in some special form.

11.37 a.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: If I may speak again by leave of the House, I would say that I recognise the principle put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, that in the special circumstances of this scheme, which preclude public inquiry and also the possibility of many of the amendments which might follow as a result of such inquiry, a special responsibility rests on the Minister to inform the House if a departure has been made from the board's scheme, and the reasons, if any, for such departure. I do not wish to enter into detail on this point or to give pledges, but I fully realise the exceptional character of this scheme, and the responsibility which rests upon the Minister in connection with it. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to interpret that in the spirit in which it has been given. As for the point put by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) on the desirability of not abandoning principles on account of an emergency, I fully agree with that, but I say that the responsibility is the Minister's for submitting the scheme, for accepting the scheme; and the general principle has been accepted in many Acts passed by Governments of other political complexions than that of this Government.

Mr. TINKER: That is the point I am trying to argue.

Mr. ELLIOT: It is not to be decided on grounds of emergency or precedent. I say that it is desirable that this principle should be considered and should be worked out in practice. I fully agree that modification may be necessary, but I assure the hon. Member that I am not commending it to the House on grounds simply of emergency or precedent, but because I think this is the best procedure to use in the circumstances of the case. With that assurance, I am sure he will accept my further assurance that this principle, which, as I have said frankly, raises an important constitutional question, should be kept under review and modified, if the time comes to modify it, in the light of our practical experience.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 3.—(Particular purposes of scheme.)

11.40 a.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: I beg to move, in page 6, line 16, to leave out "fresh and cured."
This is a drafting amendment to make it clear that the board shall have power to buy and sell all forms of herring, and not merely fresh and cured herring. These two classes would be too narrow, especially in view of the proposed amendment to Clause 14, which responds to a general desire of the House that we might define cured herring.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 6, line 22, after "stocks," insert "of cured herring".

In line 23, leave out "for sale by them", and insert:
with a view to the sale for export thereof by the Board.

In line 34, after "sales", insert "for export".—[Mr. Elliot.]

CLAUSE 9.—(Herring Fund Advances Account.)

11.41 a.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I beg to move, in page 1 line 11, after "sub-sections", to insert:
and in a case where the Treasury have directed, under Sub-section (6) of this section, that the liability of the Board to the Minister shall be reduced, a statement of the reasons for that reduction.
I understand that this Amendment will be accepted, so I content myself by moving it formally.

Mr. ELLIOT: The Amendment simply gives express effect to the intention of the Clause, and the Government has much pleasure in accepting it.

11.42 a.m.

Sir MURDOCH MCKENZIE WOOD: Does it not suggest that when you are putting upon the board the necessity of submitting this statement to the Auditor-General, the Auditor-General is to be given some discretion in the matter? I quite agree that if the Treasury were to write off anything of that kind, the reasons for the writing off should be made clear, but I do not understand why it should be necessary to give these reasons to the Auditor-General, who, after all, has nothing to do with the discretion which the Treasury or the Minister has exercised in writing off something. I should have thought this was not the place to bring in such a provision, though I have no special objection to it.

11.43 a.m.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: I hope there will be no weakening, I will not say of the right, but of the opportunity, of the Auditor-General to bring before the Public Accounts Committee everything he thinks it is proper to bring, and in accordance with the powers given to him by this House with regard to the expenditure of money. If there is one thing that we need to do, it is to keep, certainly a sympathetic eye, but nevertheless a strong hand, on how money is expended, especially when public money is given in the form of a subsidy. I am sure the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) will agree that the Auditor-General is never unsympathetic and never does anything which might harm an object for which money has been voted.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: May I give an assurance to the hon. Member for Banff (Sir M. McKenzie Wood) that my amendment follows strictly, word for word, Subsection (6) of Section 11 of the Agricultural Marketing Act?

11.44 a.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: If I may by leave of the House speak again, it is only courteous to the hon. Member for Banff (Sir M. McKenzie Wood) to say that a statement of reasons of this kind would in the ordinary course be given. This is not in any way altering the relations which normally exist, but merely making them
more explicit, and I am sure the House will agree with the hon. Baronet the Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel) that it is desirable that such matters should be kept carefully in view, especially when we are dealing with public money in this way.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 10.—(Accounts of the Board.)

11.45 a.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I beg to move, in Clause 10, page 11, line 34, at the end, to insert:
(2) The said statements shall be transmitted to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who shall lay copies thereof before both Houses of Parliament together with the report and accounts mentioned in Subsection (9) of the last foregoing section.
I gather that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept this Amendment also. I am glad to hear that, because I am not moving it as a member of the Opposition, but as one who is charged, with other Members, in looking after public accounts on behalf of the House.

Mr. ELLIOT: We all recognise the amount of public and non-party work done by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) in pursuance of duties entrusted to him by the House. We on this side regard these amendments as being moved in no sense as Opposition amendments, but as amendments moved on behalf of an important Committee of this House. The Government have pleasure in accepting the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 11.—(Powers to transfer to Board powers as to branding.)

11.47 a.m.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
I do not apologise for raising this matter again in the House. It was raised in Committee, but we were working rather against time in order to get the Bill through, and the full implications of this clause were not thoroughly understood. The object of it is to give power to transfer to the board powers as to branding. The Secretary of State showed by his reply in Committee that he fully recognised the importance of this question, and he said:
I suggest that the Ministers would not agree"—
that is, to the transfer—
unless they were convinced by practical knowledge of the facts and by experience that it would be in the interest of the industry as a whole. It is essential that the Crown's brand, which has gained a name for itself during over 100 years in the markets of the world, should be safeguarded."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 19th February, 1935, col. 126.]
I think we all are of opinion that this brand should be safeguarded, and what I ask myself is whether the best method of safeguarding it is to transfer the administration of it to a corporation like the Herring Board. We have to remember that we are establishing an independent body with power to sue and be sued and to deal in herring, and, if this transfer were effected, it would put into the hands of this corporation the power to apply a Government mark to their own goods. A matter of considerable principle is involved. No objection has been taken in the past to the manner in which the administration of the brand or the branding of herring has been carried out, but the suggestion has now been made, and was made by the Duncan Commission on page 43 of their report, that the presenting of
specific standards for brands, including the Government brands, the administration of which should be taken over from the Fishery Departments,
should be handed over to the Herring Board. Another argument put forward why it should lie handed over is, I imagine, the general supposition that the board will establish national and other marks, and, being interested in marks generally, it should have the administration of the Crown branding as well as the marks which it might itself impose. I ask the House to consider, however, whether it is desirable that we should allow a trading board of this nature to apply a Government mark under its own administration and by its own officers. The value of the Government mark, which the Secretary of State rightly said should be safeguarded, has been its complete independence. It has been administered by the Government without regard to whoever may be the dealers in herring. I am sure that the Ministers would not be prepared to agree to the handing over unless they thought it was desirable that it should be done, but I go a step further
than that, and say that the power should not be given to Ministers to enable them to hand over to the Herring Board power to apply what should be kept, and what has always been kept, as the Government mark which has been placed upon herring under the absolute independence and skilled administration of a Government department.

11.52 a.m.

Sir A. WILSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
In Committee I was inclined to think that this clause should stand part, but on further consideration I have reached the conclusion that it would be, in all the circumstances, better to omit it. I do not attach so much importance to the value of the Government brand as was suggested in Committee. I think it would possibly be a good thing for the Herring Board to start its own brands, and possibly allow the Government brand to disappear when its own brands are fully established. I think, however, that a precedent of allowing a board representing interests, in the industry to use the mark of the Crown is one about which we should think twice or three times before we finally accept it. There is a great deal of legislation on the subject of herring covering the last 300 or 400 years, and the Government in a year or two may find it possible to consolidate and amend all the Acts, and perhaps take power in some fresh form to discontinue the branding if by that time the Herring Board has its own brand fully established on the market. There is no reason why a new brand of the Herring Board should not have the same reputation and validity as the Crown brand. In the past 20 years I was a consul at ports abroad, and I saw many marks disappear and replaced by new marks of no less repute. The Crown has a special significance in England and abroad, and I should greatly dislike it being used as a mark for export purposes upon goods unless it had been placed by a Government official in the exercise of his duties independently of the board.

11.53 a.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: We recognise that there are arguments both for and against this Clause. It is interesting that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for
Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson), who supported in Committee the proposal that this permissive power should be given to the board, is on further consideration moved, to speak against it. The position of the Government still remains as it was in Committee. The Committee showed itself in two minds on the subject, and finally decided that the clause should remain. At that time my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that before the power was transferred the board would, in the first place, have to ask for it. In the second place, the Ministers would have to agree, and I suggest that they would not agree unless they were convinced by a direct knowledge of the facts and by experience that it would be in the interest of the industry as a whole. This is not a case of a brand being applied for the benefit of certain sections of the industry. This is, in fact, a case of the incorporated industry assuming responsibility for the quality of its goods. Responsibility is a great soberer, and the Board will have to exercise responsibility in many other directions in which, if it fails, it will do just as much damage to the industry as if it were to exercise in an irresponsible fashion this power which it is suggested might in future be transferred to it.
The Duncan Commission Report recommended this transfer, and recommended that it should be made now, forthwith, in the statute setting up the new Board. We think that would be going rather too far, but at the same time it is desirable that wherever possible the recommendations of the Commission should be given effect to in the statute. Parliamentary time is limited, and it is not often we can bring before Parliament a Bill for the reorganisation of one of the fishing industries. Parliament has given much time and attention to this problem, and we are now in the final stages of enacting a statute which sums up the work and thought of many months. Without strong reasons it would be inadvisable to take out a Clause which merely says that, in the exercise of their administrative functions, Ministers may, On application by the Board, make a transfer of these powers, especially as the transfer was recommended by the Duncan Commission. I will, however. give a most specific undertaking, in the
name of the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself, that no such transfer shall be made as a mere ordinary piece of administrative routine, but only after due consideration, and, I think we could say, after an opportunity had been given for a review of such a decision in the House. I can go no further, but I think that is a far reaching pledge, and I hope that with that assurance hon Members will not find it necessary to press the amendment.

11.58 a.m.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: I take the view that it would be inadvisable to delete this Clause. The Board will, as a matter of honour, quite apart from duty, be eager to make their operations a success, and if they are, as I hope, going to seek for fresh markets, it may be necessary that there should be great elasticity as to the branding of herring. It will be to the advantage of the industry to allow the Clause to remain, so that if the Board do apply for this right to make brands, and put up a good case to the Minister, the Minister may, if he likes, transfer those powers to them.

11.59 a.m.

Sir R. HAMILTON: I fully appreciate the spirit in which the Minister has met this amendment, but I still think the House fails to appreciate the principle underlying it. It is on a question of principle that I moved it. I think it is wrong in principle that the Herring Board should have the right to apply its own brands, and although I appreciate the assurance that no step in this direction will be taken without a most careful scrutiny of the position I remain of the same opinion as I was when I moved the Amendment. I do not propose to divide the House, because opinion appears to be against me, but I want to register most strongly the view that we are making a mistake.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 14.—(Interpretation.)

12 n

Mr. ELLIOT: I beg to move, in page 13, line 12, at the end, to insert:
Cured herring ' means herring which have been pickled in salt or in brine, or in both, and packed in barrels, and which have not been subjected to any process of smoking.
This is a definition of cured herring which is being put forward to meet requests made in Committee for such a definition.

12.1 p.m.

Sir M. MCKENZIE WOOD: I do not want to oppose this Amendment, but I wish to express my regret that it was found necessary to include the words, "packed in barrels." Would herring packed in any other container be different from herring in barrels? There is no saying what the future may bring forth, and I think it would be better to leave out those words.

12.2 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: I am anxious to give every consideration to practical points put forward by my hon. Friends. It is possible, of course, that in another place it may be desirable to make some such Amendment, and we shall certainly give the matter the closest consideration, because there is always the danger that a definition may over-define. We saw this difficulty in the Committee stage, and were a little unwilling to include the definition. Over-definition is a danger. We will, however, look further into the matter, because we might desire to amend the definition on the lines suggested.

Mr. LOFTUS: I suggest to my right hon. Friend that we should get a better definition by adding after the word "barrels" the words "or in other containers." I think that would safeguard the future.

Dr. ADDISON: I hope the Minister will give further consideration to this suggestion, because I think my hon. Friend who has put it forward is right.

Mr. ELLIOT: The suggestion now made is that the words should be "in barrels or in other containers." I am always anxious to consider such suggestions, because whatever authority may reside in a Committee the practical experience found in the House as a whole which is applied to a Bill on Report stage, ought to be taken into consideration; and when we are admittedly modelling a Bill which is not the product of any one party or section of the House, we are most desirous of collecting opinions so that we may have the benefit of them when we are considering the matter in another place.

Sir R. HAMILTON: May I suggest that we should leave out the words "and packed in barrels"? That would get rid of all the difficulty as to what the container might be.

Mr. ELLIOT: If I were to leave out the words, "and packed in barrels," it would be necessary for me to be under no undertaking that I should not further wish to modify the definition in another place. It is desirable to avoid lengthening the Parliamentary stages of a Bill and I should be prepared now to leave out the words "and packed in barrels," but on the definite understanding that if this is not a satisfactory definition we may amend it in another place. If it were in order, I should be willing to move the amendment subject to the omission of the words, "and packed in barrels."

Amendment to proposed Amendment made: In line 2, leave out "and packed in barrels."—[Mr. Elliot.]

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Provisions with respect to the Board and to their Proceedings.)

12.6 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: I beg to move, in page 16, line 8, at the end, to insert:
7. If the office of a member of the board becomes vacant under paragraphs 3, 4, 5 or 6 of this Schedule, or by reason of the death of a member, the Ministers shall proceed to the appointment of a new member of the hoard to fill the vacant office.
I put down an amendment similar to this amendment during the Committee stage, but it was not called. My object in moving it is twofold. In all the articles of association of limited companies which I have read, I have always found provision for the retirement of members of the board, for their removal, if they misbehaved themselves, or for their reappointment. There is a provision in Clause 1 for the appointment of the original members of the board, and in the First Schedule there are provisions for their term of office and for their removal from office, but so far as I can see there is no provision for their reappointment. That is my first reason. The second is that it is important to ensure that the relative representation of 5 and 3 on the board shall be maintained. I should not like to feel that
Ministers were leaving a vacancy unfilled for a very long time.
I thought of various ways of wording the later part of this amendment, and finally concluded that "the Ministers shall proceed to the appointment" was best. I did not want to say "as soon as may be" or "as convenient" or "as soon as possible." The words are intended to mean that the Ministers, pretty soon after the Member's retirement, shall proceed to appoint a new Member.

Sir A. WILSON: I beg to second the Amendment.

12.9 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: I congratulate my hon. Friend on having had called on Report stage an amendment which was not called during the Committee stage. I am glad to have an opportunity of assuring him that he need not fear that Ministers will neglect their duty of filling a vacancy, and that I think the words proposed are not necessary. I suggest again that we may over-define. It is part of the ordinary administrative tasks of Ministers to ensure that vacancies are filled without undue delay, and, if we insert words in the Bill, we might start precedents which would means that such words would be inserted in every Bill. I accepted with a certain amount of reluctance an amendment moved by the hon. Member setting out the detailed qualifications of certain persons who shall be entitled to act as auditors, and my reluctance was due to the feeling that if we define too strictly in a Statute all the things which it is the ordinary administrative duty of Ministers to perform, statutes may become unmanageable, and we may find ourselves fettering the discretion of Ministers in some unforeseen way. It is our intention to see that these vacancies are properly filled. After this assurance I hope that my hon. Friend will not think it necessary to press the amendment and that he will leave the matter to that discretion, of Ministers upon which we shall really have to rely.

Mr. PETHERICK: Are powers given to Ministers by the Bill to reappoint, or is that simply left in the air?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am assured by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate that power to appoint is in
effect power to reappoint and that it is not necessary to be too specific. I am assured by my right hon. and learned Friend, who has very great legal experience, that the point is indeed covered by the words of the statute.

Mr. PETHERICK: On the assurance of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, who is an eminent legal authority, that there is no necessity for these words, I beg to ask leave to withdraw, my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

12.13 p.m.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: I do not want to part with this Bill without giving a word of grave warning as to its operation and to the likelihood of its success. I am a supporter of the Bill, because I hope—although I have not very much expectation—that it will help a splendid body of men. The essence of the Bill lies in the degree of advantage which may be brought to the industry by the Board. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) described the Board as a trading board. I agree with him. The true object of the Bill is to sell herring and to give more work to those splendid men whose services are essential to us. There are to be two on the board who are not in any way connected with the industry.
Clause 3 contains the pivot of the Bill; it lies in paragraph (a). Anyone of average business ability can deal with paragraphs (b) to (o), which operate breaking down operations, whereas paragraph (a) is the building up paragraph. When I read paragraph (f), I thought what a pity it was that instead of putting more of these excellent fishermen to sea we were being driven to the necessity of limiting their opportunities of getting a living. What are the prospects of paragraph (a) becoming beneficially operative, so far as the Board are conecrned? I am not Member for a fishing port, but I think hon. Members know that I was born and lived in the East of Norfolk near Great Yarmouth, the greatest of our herring ports, and I know and admire the fishing folk who live there. When I was at the Department of Overseas Trade
a few years ago, in 1925 and 1926, I had considerable opportunity of making myself acquainted with the problems of the exports of our North Sea fisheries. That is my excuse for interfering in this Debate. I personally investigated the possibility of getting our fish to North Italy when I was at Milan officially in 1925 or 1926. In Switzerland also, I made inquiries as to how to get the Swiss to buy our fish. I do not want to go into details, but that is my reason for intervening in this Debate at all. The following year I went with various Members of this House to Buckie, Lossiemouth, Frazerburgh, Aberdeen and other places to see what we could do to help the herring fishermen.
What we have to consider in this Bill is, how you are going to promote the sales and where you are going to find, fresh demands. Of one thing I am certain, and that is that we shall never in our lifetime get back in any volume the Russian trade. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh !"] I said "in any volume"—in any respectable volume to help us to get back to the position of the trade in salt herring of years ago. Within the last few months I have been at Danzig, where I made inquiries of people quite unknown to me as to the prospects of the restoration of our sales of salt herring to Russia. I also went to Tallin, or Reval, and to Hamburg. I had a conversation with the head of one of the leading herring export firms. I do not propose to say anything about the German position, because the situation has altered considerably in the last few months, and I am not up-to-date. I used to hear the hon. Member for Banff (Sir M. McKenzie Wood) always scolding the Government because we had not an Anglo-Russian agreement. If I may say so without offence, he used to whine about an Anglo-Russian trade agreement as the remedy with which to restore the herring export trade. He wasted time and opportunity. We have now got it, and what is it worth? Very little The Anglo-Russian Trade Agreement has not been the remedy. I do not know whether the hon. Member has been to Danzig, as I have. If he has inquired there on the spot he will have found out that it is not a question of an Anglo-Russian agreement to enable us to sell more herring to Russia, nor a question of money. The Russians will eat the herring and can pay for them, but they cannot get them
to the people who need them. When I was at Danzig and Tallin I was told that the Russian trunk lines were probably well equipped for taking people and goods on the main routes, but that the great body of consumers of salt herring from Britain and Germany were not the urban populations of Russia at all, but the peasants in the depths of Russia. They could distribute the herring along the main trunk lines, but over the smaller lines branching into the interior, where the peasants were in greater numbers, the railway system was disorganised, and they could not get the fish to the interior districts.
The hon. Member for Banff has never told us anything about that transport position, even if he knew it. He has been, if I may say so, doing no service to his own people in his division; but, instead, a dis-service by directing their attention to a trade which we can never get back to its old volume with the railway system of Russia as it is. It would have been far wiser for him to have directed the attention of the fisher folk in his part of the world to other possible markets and fresh outlets. If the Herring Board does not obtain, as a result of Ail investigations and efforts, increased sales and markets this Bill is mere waste paper. We have spent some days, very sympathetically, in trying to get the Bill through quickly and are willing to vote £600,000 or £700,000 of the taxpayers' money. All of this will be of no use unless we can sell more herring. The two selling experts who are going on this board are not to be connected with the herring industry. I think that is quite right, but where are you to get men such as those by which the great businesses have been built up in England—individualist men of great ability and pluck, with initiative and great imagination? The type of men you need and must get to create new markets for these fish are men who can earn £10,000 a year in their own trades. Where are you to get them? They must not sit down at Whitehall, or Edinburgh, or Aberdeen, or Inverness, or some such place; they must get up on their own legs and go personally into the markets at home and overseas as I and others have had to do to earn our living.
If I am right in believing that the Marketing Board is the pivot of this
Bill, the type of man you want is a man who, knowing what he has got to sell, will himself go into the markets abroad, see what the people there would like and then create, as it were, a spear-head of demand. You start that man behind a spear-head of advertising to introduce the goods and the man pushes the sales by personal contact with the people in his new market. There is a good market perhaps awaiting us. What I say is only from memory, but I think I remember that in Argentina, a country very friendly towards us, there is a market to be developed not only for salt herring, but the type of herring we call in Yarmouth the Yarmouth Red, and in Scotland they call "a Glasgow magistrate." It is a smoked herring very much like smoked salmon. You will not sell salt herring very much in Argentina. You want men of initiative and knowledge who will go out to over-sea countries and create markets for their goods as we do for textiles and other manufactured goods. I do not know what the Minister has in mind about the men he is going to put on the board to find markets and create sales and distribute the produce, but, as I say, the type of men who can do good in this business and make a success of the Bill, will be the type who can make large sums in their own industries, factories and trades. The creation of an export trade cannot be done by a board or by officials or by people sitting in a room with a typewriter and telephone. I warn the Minister that unless the board has highly competent sales managers to make a success of what is laid down in Clause 3 (a)
the promotion of sales and market development and the promotion and carrying out of schemes of research and experiment
this Bill is merely throwing dust in the eyes of the poor fishermen.
Clause 4, I think, is a very poor clause. I am sorry to say I have been 16 years in this House, and remember earlier Profiteering Bills. There is constant objection to retailers charging 1d., 2d, or 4d. whether it be a herring or a cabbage or a flower. Highly perishable goods involve the retailer in great losses. If one examined the wastage from putrefaction in a fishmonger's shop, one would be surprised to see the immense loss there is on the stock values; how much the fresh fish have to pay for the stale fish.
What the fishmongers lose on the roundabouts they have to make up on the swings. It is impossible to sell herring at very much less than the present price. After all, you can get a good herring for 3d. I had two last night for my dinner, more than one required. Weight for weight these fish are more nutritious than anything else for the price. Weight for weight a fat herring contains as much nourishment for a strong man as a rump-steak, and is much cheaper. There is no cheaper form of food. Probably, if people had to pay half-a-crown for a herring, they would be more likely to buy it, and would think much more of it while the fishermen would get a better price. Clause 4, which seems to me to imply a good deal of unreflecting condemnation of the retailer, is not only rather mean-spirited, but is never likely to realize the desired effect. Unless in the setting up of the board we succeed in getting men who will be leaders for the industry, with the enterprise, initiative, knowledge, energy, will and desire to go abroad themselves to seek out and make more markets, the Bill will only provide public money to restrict operations in the herring industry—an industry which means employment for one of the best sections of our population, whose courage and seamanship are essential for public service in the Navy in time of war and for manning the lifeboats in time of peace.

12.27 p.m.

Dr. ADDISON: The right hon. Gentleman will agree that those Members whom I represent on this side of the House have at all stages of the Bill sought to be helpful in their criticism. I want to raise one point in order to get it on the record of the Third Reading—a point which I regard as of great importance. It is in connection with an assurance which the Minister gave to me during the Committee stage upstairs, affecting the provisions of paragraph (i) of Clause 3. Owing to the very diverse forms in which fishing takes place, along some parts of our English coast at any rate, and it may be in Scotland also, there is a number of quite small people who might be overlooked in a scheme of this kind. I raised the question of their cases being properly considered, either with respect to arbitration or otherwise, and the Minister gave us an undertaking that, although owing to the form of the Bill the details could
not be set out in the Bill, the matters affecting compensation, arbitration and proceedings relative thereto which might affect the livelihood of quite small people whom a big board might be apt to overlook, would be set out in detail in the scheme. I only want to call the attention of the House to that assurance, which I am sure the Minister will make good.
I should also like to call attention to some of the observations of the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel). I agree that the success or failure of the scheme will depend upon whether sales can be increased, but I do not take the hon. baronet's view as to the outlook in Russia. It seemed to me, even in 1930–31, when I was at the Ministry of Agriculture, that there were great possibilities in the Russian market. As far as I know, there was on the part of the Russians a complete readiness to pay, and I should gather, from what I have learned, that the opening up of internal transport in Russia is proceeding very rapidly. If the thing is properly encouraged, I do not see any reason why a large measure of that market, particularly in the Southern half of Russia, which used to take such large quantities of herring, should not be reopened and, perhaps, extended.
There is another section of the market to which the hon. Baronet did not do as full justice as one might expect, namely, the ordinary Englishman's breakfast table. I think we ought to be able to get herring on to people's breakfast tables at less than 3d. each. They are caught in uncountable numbers, and very large numbers of them are often sold for very small sums, so that the price received per herring must be exceedingly small. I should hope that the experts of the Ministry and the board will have before them the idea of getting herring on to English breakfast tables for 1d. each. I am afraid that this immense undeveloped market for fresh herring at our own ordinary breakfast tables has never been properly tackled. In the part of the country where I live, there has been great difficulty in getting fresh herring, and I hope that that element in the situation will be prominently before the minds of the board.
I do not share the hon. Baronet's misgivings with regard to the type of person whom it will be possible to get to serve on the board. My experience is
that these experts—and there are several of them—who are first-rate men in promoting sales, are very willing to give their help, without prodigious fees, in matters of this kind, and I feel sure that the Minister will be able to enlist their assistance on the hoard. Finally, I want, in accordance with a request made to me by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard), to thank the Minister for the consideration which he has given, during the Committee stage and now, to the representations which have been made to him, and to assure him that, so far as we are concerned, we shall do our best to make the scheme a success.

12.33 p.m.

Sir M. MCKENZIE WOOD: The hon. Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel) raised a rather controversial issue with regard to the question of Russia as a market for British herring. I do not propose to pursue the line that he chose for himself, except to say that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) with regard to the possibilities of Russia as a market for British herring. I can assure the hon. Baronet that, in the view that he takes of the Russian market, he has not the support of the industry. The industry does believe that there is a great opportunity for it in the development of the Russian market, and certainly my constituents, and all the herring fishermen along the North East of Scotland, have great hopes of what may be done in developing the herring fishing industry in the future with the assistance of Russia.
I have had a great deal to say about this Bill during the course of its passage through the House, and there is very little left for me either to say or to do except to speed it on its way. As I have said before, I had hoped that the scheme would have been in operation earlier than now appears likely. I have been disappointed in that hope. The industry also has been disappointed, and regrets it very much. All that we can say now is that
If hopes were dupes, fears may be liars,
and I. hope the fears which we have entertained may also be disappointed. I sincerely hope that that may be so, and that those fears will prove eventually to have been groundless.
In spite of the hapless state of the herring industry at the present time, I am bound to say that I, at any rate, am not a defeatist I agree that a great deal can be done, and, indeed, it is the only thing that can be done, to help the industry by bringing about an increase both in the home market and in the foreign market; but the success of the industry in the future must depend largely upon the development of the foreign market. As far as the home market is concerned, it seems to me that the future depends upon a very simple matter. It is simply this, not merely whether the fish will be provided cheaply but whether in all circumstances the herring provided for the breakfast table of the British public is good and wholesome and palatable. A great deal of harm is done to the industry by the fact that herring is kippered, or bloatered, or sent into the market which ought not to be there at all, or, if it is sent there, if in good condition it is kept so long that by the time it is eaten it is insipid, and anyone who eats herring in that condition is apt to say, "I will not have anything more to do with it." The secret, it seems to me, of the promotion of the sale of herring at home is to ensure that at all hazards bad fish will never be put on to the market.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: That is a great discovery that you have made.

Sir M. MCKENZIE WOOD: I do not see why the hon. Baronet should always jeer at these things. Although it may not be a great discovery, it is none the less a fact that a great deal of bad food is put on the market. It is not the responsibility of the industry, because they produce their fish and cure it well, but they have no guarantee how long it will remain in the fishmongers' shops before it is sold, and it is there that the deterioration takes place.
With regard to the foreign market, this has always been an export industry, and unless we can get back to a large extent the foreign markets, it will never nearly reach the dimensions that it has had in the past. I believe a great deal can be done, because the British herring industry has an advantage which no other industry in the world has. The fish is admitted to be very much better on account of the fact that they are near
the fishing ground and are able to cure it under better conditions, and it is obvious to anyone who looks into it that British herring always find a more ready market than German or Norwegian. If the industry will concentrate not merely on always getting the very best fish but also on getting it as cheaply as possible, I am certain that they will be able to meet their competitors in the markets of the world. It is clear that, if the industry will rationalise itself, it can do a great real to cut down expenses. The scheme which this Bill adumbrates will go a long way to enable a lot of dead wood to be cut down and a lot of unnecessary expense to be got rid of, and, if that is done, by always putting their fish on the market in the very best condition and at the cheapest possible price—and they can do it a great deal cheaper than they have done it in the past—they will be able at no distant time to put the industry in a very much better position. I believe the Bill has possibilities of the greatest advantage to the industry and I can only hope that the most sanguine hopes that we entertain will be realised.

12.40 p.m.

Captain ELLISTON: I feel bound to refer to certain marketing considerations which will occupy the attention of the board that is to be set up under the Bill. I do so in view of certain statements made in the Second Reading debate which have been held to reflect both on the Corporation of the City of London, of which I am a member, and on the traders of Billingsgate fish market. Before considering the conditions at Billingsgate it might be thought that we should await the second report of the Sea Fisheries Commission, set up under the Sea Fisheries Act, which will deal with the catching and marketing of fish. Meanwhile, as a Market Authority the City Corporation require no defence. Their meat market at Smithfield and their fruit and vegetable market at Smith fields are taken as the standard of excellence all over the world.
Unfortunately in the Second Reading debate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) made statements which did less than justice to the corporation and which may inflict grievous injury on the traders
of Billingsgate market. He described Billingsgate as the most congested and one of the worst markets in the world, but he made no mention of the tremendous efforts that have been made by the corportion to deal with admittedly unsatisfactory conditions. Those familiar with other markets are not prepared to admit that Billingsgate is anything like the worst market in Europe, or indeed in England. The congestion there is mainly due to the constricted area on which the market is built, the tortuous and ancient streets leading to it and the single road frontage where wagons must be loaded. Everything conceivably possible has been done by the City Corporation for years past to alleviate those conditions, and it is common knowledge that they have been in negotiation with the Office of Works to acquire the Customs House and quay which adjoin the market. If they could develop it in that direction, all the problems would be easily solved. Unfortunately, in 1931 the Government suspended negotiations with the City Corporation owing to the financial crisis, and since then the corporation have been told that the First Commissioner is unable to vary the terms which had previously been offered, and which are said to be prohibitive.
My hon. and gallant Friend made a further and more damaging statement as affecting the traders at Billingsgate. He alleged that the market charges added 25 per cent. to all fish that went through Billingsgate, and he described the market as a menace to the trade. It can be shown that the prices for fish of all kinds compare favourably with other markets. In fact, very often the prices at Billingsgate are better. I admit that my hon. and gallant Friend's criticisms were made in a friendly spirit, because I believe the intention was to assist the corporation in coming to terms with the Government in reference to the Customs House site. Here again he was mistaken in suggesting that the sum involved is not large. I have no official information, because only the committee and the Office of Works know what price has been mentioned, but I am told that it would represent a capital charge which no fish market could ever bear, even with the handsome assistance which the City Corporation is accustomed to give to its market undertakings.
This Bill has shown the desire of the whole House to assist the fishing industry as far as possible and to secure for the public abundant supplies of this wholesome fish food. I hope that the Ministers in charge of the Bill will go a little further and try and persuade their colleague the First Commissioner of Works to do something to help the corporation to alleviate conditions at Billingsgate which have been condemned in this House without due consideration to the impossible position in which the corporation stands at present.

12.46 p.m.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: On the point about Billingsgate, I agree with what has been said, not only against the premises, but the method of the market, and object to the way that the salesmen get the better of the deal on the consignment of fish. They sell them to one another as principals and 'they deal with the fish on their own account. What we want is to get more sales, as, has been said by the Minister and occupants of the Front Opposition benches. Why is it that we have so limited a home market? I do not agree with the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel) that 3d. is too small a price for a herring. It is an awful lot. It is far too much, even more than the price of an egg. Most people prefer an egg because it is much simpler to cook than the herring. If herring were cooked in "quick-frys" there would be no smell left in the pan. Housewives would be more ready to make use of herring if they had "quick-frys", only they are expensive and require a lot of dripping. What is wrong is that we do not get the herring into the market in the condition that we ought to get them, because many of those who deal in herring have been allowed to commit fraud on the appetites of the public by selling fish that look what in fact they are not. What ruined the kipper market was that people dyed fish and kippers and pretended that they were bonâ fide smoked fish and kippers. They are smoked, not with oak chips, but any kind of wood for a third of the period of the necessary time, and then dipped into rich brown dye, when they look like perfectly smoked kippers. They do not deteriorate in taste if eaten soon after, but afterwards, if they wait, they have a nasty musty flavour. People start to eat them in trains and restaurants, push
them aside, and say that they do not know whatever is wrong with the kippers, and will not have them again. The best kippers come all the way from Scotland, and it is because the kipper people cure them properly that they can be sent considerable distances without in any way getting stale. The best kippers are to be found in Africa, in Johannes burgh, brought from Scotland. I hope that the board will have power to prohibit all this fraud and dyeing.
I made a complaint to the Minister of Health who said that he could not interfere, because this was not a menace to health. The Minister of Health ought to see that they put upon the market an article which is genuine as well as non-injurious. If you had kippers such as are obtainable in Johannesburg, they could be sold cheaply and be on everybody's table. Many people can eat kippers who cannot eat so-called fresh herring. They keep for a much longer period. The small kipperer is the man to do it. I know a man in Carradale who was so particular that he would not send them to market unless the herring were perfect. The man who prepares the perfect kipper is the man who takes his job seriously and who is an artist. You do not get the best kippers by the mass production of kippers carried on in some English ports, because production has to be kept going whether the herring are satisfactory or not. The thing is to encourage the small kipperer who will make a much better job of it than the mass producer. The next thing is to get the herring direct to the consumer, and to encourage the hawker who goes to the boat with his motor cycle and side car and takes off two boxes and sells the herring from door to door. Those are really fresh herring. Tinder the present system they are sent to the market at Billingsgate and other places by train and are sold when the "bloom" has gone off. I believe that this hawker business was suppressed by some Act of Parliament. I do not really know, but it was stated, I believe, by the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson). If that be so the hawking industry should be resurrected. There is a good living for people in getting fresh fish to the door of the consumer, and if the Marketing Board will stimulate that, I feel sure
there will be a very much larger quantity of fish used for the benefit of the whole population.

12.49 p.m.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I wish to express my agreement with the criticism of Billingsgate of the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten). He seemed to infer that we could not do anything to help. I suggest to him that he should give, as I am sure he will, his full support to the Bill which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Banff (Sir M. McKenzie Wood) introduced to deal, at any rate with one important aspect of these difficulties. I agree very much with the hon. Baronet the Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel) in his approach to the Bill, and with the opinion he expressed that the possibility of its success was dependent upon the success of the Herring Board as a trading board.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Two special members.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: And particularly on the two special members of the board. I have a great admiration for the knowledge and experience of the hon. baronet, and for the services which he has rendered not only as he reminded us, when he was Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade, but at other times also to the herring fishing industry. But I resent his attack upon my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Banff, because there is no man in this House of Commons who has devoted himself with greater wisdom, energy and self-sacrifice to the interests of the fishing industry than my hon. and gallant Friend, and I particularly resent it when he speaks about the hon. and gallant Member whining for a Russian agreement. He has of course the right to ask for an agreement with Russia. If the supermen in whom the hon. baronet places his confidence for the revival of the industry are going to spend their time sneering at other people who are working to try and expand the markets of the fishing industry in every direction, then indeed the Herring Board will not have very much chance of success. There is, I feel convinced, as do the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) and other hon. Members who
have spoken, a great market in Russia. The hon. baronet said never would we get back to Russia.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Not in the immediate future. As the right hon. baronet has rebuked me may I say that I did not say that the hon. and gallant Member for Banff (Sir M. McKenzie Wood) had done anything wrong, but that his energies and efforts were misapplied. He could have made better use of his opportunities in another and more profitable a direction. We have made the Anglo-Russian agreement he pressed for. What have we gained out of it for the herring trade?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am going to deal with that matter.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: We shall have to wait some years before it becomes effective, and in the meantime we have to sell the herring.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The hon. baronet now says that my hon. and gallant Friend has done nothing wrong, but he represented him as wasting his time in his activities on behalf of the industry, and said that he was whining for a Russian agreement. The hon. baronet, if he looks in the OFFICIAL REPORT, will find that he did say, "Never." I have the word clown, and that word is absolutely unjustifiable. He referred to the disorganisation of the transport system in Russia. It must be well known to anybody who is in touch with what is going on in that country, that this disorganisation is being rapidly attended to, and, further than that, that quantities of inferior herring are being brought from other countries at the present time, and we ought to get a share of that market. The hon. baronet has said that the trading agreement has not done us any good, but all I can say is that, under the old trading agreement which was eon-eluded by the Labour Government, and which, I agree, was not by any means a perfect instrument, we in fact managed to sell 100,000 barrels of herring to Russia in 1932.
The reason why we have been able to do very little business with Russia since then has been the attitude adopted by the present Government, as a, result of the Ottawa Agreement and the pressure of the Canadian timber exporters. After
a long delay an agreement was arrived which, as stated by the hon. Baronet, was no better from the point of view of the herring fishing industry than the old agreement of the Labour Government. Under that agreement, instead of selling 100,000 barrels of herring, as in 1932, we were only able to sell 70,000 barrels, and there were a number of conditions attached even to that transaction; but I have hope that now that a better spirit is being brought about in the relations between the British and the Russian Governments we shall be able to expand the market for herring in Russia. I hope that the new, Herring Board will give very careful consideration and study to the possibilities of expansion in that great country.
I agree with the hon. Baronet about the importance of the appointment of the two special members of the Board. It will not be easy to get the right men. The right hon. Gentleman for Swindon said that in his experience there was no difficulty in getting men of great experience and capacity to serve the State at very little salaries, but I remember that the Labour Government had to pay £7,000 a year to get a man to take charge of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Board. Therefore, they experienced a difficulty, and it will not be easy to get the men you want in connection with the Herring Board. I hope, however, that the Government will be successful.
We are faced with proposals which are fundamentally dangerous and even poisonous, but we have an industry on the brink of collapse, like a patient almost in extremis, and you have to administer powerful and dangerous poisons in order to give the patient a chance of life. Fortunately the board will come to an end in 1940. Meantime, money will be supplied by the Government which will be the oxygen to revive the patient in its present condition. I therefore welcome the Bill. One hon. Member asked how far it was wise to subordinate sound principles in an emergency. The difficulty is that people are too often apt to think that there are emergencies when there are not but in this case there can be no doubt about the emergency and no doubt about the need for drastic action. Therefore, I welcome the action which the Government has taken. It was necessary to introduce a Bill of this
character, and I should even have liked her to see them introduce the scheme suggested in the report of the Duncan Commission. I hope that they will get the scheme quickly into operation, and as far as I and my friends, are concerned we shall give the Government every help in our power to get it swiftly into operation. I hope that the Measure will fulfil all the hopes of the Government. It will certainly not be for lack of co-operation on our part if it fails.

1.0 p.m.

Mr. LOFTUS: I should like to refer to some of the remarks made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel). I can assure him that everyone connected with the herring ports welcome any suggestions or statements which he, as the nestor and historian of the trade, makes. We hope that to-day may open a new chapter for him and that in a future edition of his remarkable book on the herring he may be able to add an additional chapter. I was greatly struck by his remarks about foreign trade, and I should like every member of the Herring Board to have those remarks constantly before him. I thoroughly agree with him that a policy of restriction is a dreadful policy and one not to be adopted except in the last resort. The first work before the Herring Board will be, as he said, to develop with every possible energy the foreign market. Incidentally, arising out of that question, I would point out that that will mean constant inter-communication between the members of the board and various Government Departments. No announcement has been made as to where the headquarters of the board will be, whether in Edinburgh or London. I think it would be a mistake to fix the headquarters in Edinburgh permanently. For the first year there will have to be constant touch between the Herring Board and Government Departments in London, and it might be as well to have the board here, to begin with.
The hon. baronet referred to the Russian market. I am not a pessimist about that market, but I recognise that 10 years ago only 50 cwt. of herring were caught at Murmansk, whereas last year 500,000 cwt. were caught there. They are building a herring fleet in the White Sea. In spite of those facts, I think the big future for the herring industry will
be the Russian market. But I suggest to my right hon. Friend that in the most friendly way it might be pointed out to the Russian Government that for every pounds worth of fish that they buy from us we buy from them £12 worth. It might be suggested in the most friendly way that that discrepancy is too big. Last year we sold £95,000 worth of herring to Russia and, although I have not the figures, I am sure that we bought from Russia over £1,000,000 worth of fish, such as tinned crab and tinned salmon.
Another word on foreign markets. We must develop new markets. I have had a long letter from an Englishman resident in Italy and he gave facts and figures that convinced me that there are great possibilities for us there. I have had another letter from a resident in South Africa where, again, there are prospects of a good market. Another matter that will come before the Board will be the improvement of the home market. I agree with the right hon. Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) that there is a possibility of increasing home sales to a great extent and that there should be the possibility of selling the fish cheaper at home. In that connection I have only two remarks to make. A very practical experiment was made in Cambridge a year or two ago. Fresh herring were delivered in the town of Cambridge by tricycles. The experiment lasted only one year but the success was very great and the people in Cambridge said that they never knew herring could taste so nice. They got the fish, fresh and cheap, delivered at their doors. There was an enormous increase in the sales. If that can be done by a private individual as an experiment there are great possibilities before the Board.
Again, the board can, and must, insure uniform good quality. On rare occasions kippers have been made from very inferior fish and while only a very few of these inferior fish may have been used, they destroy the trade in that part for the future. The third task before the board must be to deal with the occasional glut, and I would suggest that they should at once consider steps to erect an oil factory in Scotland and another in East Anglia so as to be able to take the surplus of herring when there is a glut. The board will, of course, go into the question of research and the great possibilities in regard to freezing. The board have not power to operate freezing
factories, but they can guarantee money. Last year if I had been able to secure a guarantee of £5,000 I could have got a second and much larger freezing ship in Yarmouth. The fourth thing the board must consider is a reduction of costs. There is a great field for a reduction of costs, better ways of getting coal to the ports—and coal is a tremendous item. I do not want in any way to damage or injure merchants and store dealers. Indeed, the store dealers have kept the trade alive, they have financed the small man, and heavy liabilities are still owing to them to-day. But in looking after the interests of the store dealers I think that we can still reduce costs. Now that the Government are coming to the aid of this industry with money, apart from reorganisation, I am sure that the banks, recognising that the Government are making a financial contribution, will themselves be prepared to help by writing off a certain percentage of the mortgage they hold on the boats or reduce the interest for a few years to come.
Finally, I feel that the question of redundancy, restriction, must be the last thing to be considered by the board. An expansion of markets first, the foreign market and then the home market, secondly to deal with a glut, and afterwards a reduction of costs. Only as a last resource must be resort in any way to the dreadful policy of restriction. Such a policy may not be necessary except to a small and limited degree. Speaking on behalf of the English herring trade, as I am entitled to do, I thank the Government for the Bill and for the expedition with which they have passed it, through this House. I thank them for having arranged the conferences with the trade which had taken place last week, and for the arrangement to put the scheme before the House as soon as possible. I thank them not only on behalf of the owners but on behalf of the fishermen who have suffered so terribly in recent years. In the Second Reading debate the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) said that after all the turnover of this trade was no greater than that of the brass button trade of Birmingham. That kind of statement seems to me to be an echo of the last century, of a hundred years ago. Surely we have now reached a stage when we do not judge an industry, a
trade or a profession, by the mere financial results and turnover. Surely we have learned to judge a trade by the quality of the men in the industry and by the services it renders to the nation. Judged by the quality of the services it has rendered in the past, are being rendered to-day and which will be rendered in the future, the herring industry, however small its turnover may be, can take a position second to none in Great Britain.

1.10 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: It is always pleasant to listen to an enthusiast like my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) and to the right hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair). It always entrances me to listen to a political descendant of 1880 Gladstonian Liberalism defending a measure like this which implies a great deal of rigid control. Obviously, the Bill is intended to benefit in the main the east coast of Scotland and those ports on the east coast of England engaged in the herring fishery. Speaking for a west country division my attitude is one of critical but yet benevolent neutrality.

Sir A. WILSON: Not armed neutrality?

Mr. PETHERICK: Not armed neutrality yet. I do not think that fishermen in the west country can hope to gain very much by the Bill; indeed, they may lose to some extent. Everything will depend on the scheme put forward by the board. I am grateful that as a result of the acceptance of an amendment attention has been drawn to the possibility, indeed the probability, that it will be necessary to exempt certain areas from the operation of the Bill. It would be most unfortunate if by conferring possible benefits on. Buckie you were, at the same time to impose hardships on Mevagissey and Newlyn. I think we should be careful in accepting any scheme which the board puts up. With regard to the financial aspects, everything will depend on the scheme. We have only the mere outline in the Bill. It gives certain powers to the board, and then the board have to make up the scheme themselves. I should like to feel that the chairman was a man who had something of the qualities of a Gladstonian Liberal. Someone in the nature of an exiled Aberdonian might be advisable, because there is going
to be a considerable rush on the part of those who are expecting to get financial benefits. Under the Bill advances may be made for the purchase of redundant boats and for equipment. It will be necessary to be most careful to see that such advances get, into the right hands and tare used for the purposes for which they are intended. The hon. Member for Lowestoft advocated paying off mortgages.

Mr. LOFTUS: I must correct my hon. Friend. I did not make my position clear. My point was that everybody is making sacrifices in order to put this industry on its legs. The Government are subscribing money. I hope that the holders of mortgages on boats will also contribute to putting the industry on its legs, either by reducing the mortgages or reducing the rates of interest.

Mr. PETHERICK: I am sorry if I misunderstood my hon. Friend. I was under the impression that he was advocating that money advanced by the Treasury should be used to pay off old debts. There should be some kind of standstill arrangement made by the banks and the fish salesmen, to whom the fishermen are indebted, and no fresh money should be used to pay off old debts. I hope that the board will be very rigid in its administration of any scheme in order to see that the money gets into the right hands, and is used for future requirements and not simply to pay off past debts. With regard to the amount of money which is advanced there is a rather direful provision in the Bill as to what happens if the money is not paid off. I think it is quite possible that a considerable amount of money may be outstanding when the scheme, which may be brought forward, is over. therefore think that it will be absolutely necessary to be most careful, in the choice of a chairman, to see that we have a man who has a very rigid desire to maintain the finances, to ensure that the money is spent correctly, and at the same time a man who has tact, energy and industry.
I believe that the Bill is in the main a marketing Bill. I hope that in the first year or two of the board's existence the board will not concentrate on redundant boats, the licensing of fishermen, and all that sort of thing, but will
devote almost its entire energy to the promotion of marketing, particularly marketing abroad. Hon. Members have pointed out that there is an opportunity for development in foreign markets. We should send our salesmen out from here in order to push a really good product which we know that this country can provide. Everything will depend on the scheme that the board proposes. sincerely hope that the scheme will be a sound one and one which can be accepted, and I wish the Bill well. I wish well to any scheme that the board brinks out. In the West country we cannot hope to gain very much, but if, without our position there being jeopardised, we can confer benefits on other parts of the country which are in a very grave situation. I for one shall welcome the Bill.

1.18 p.m.

Sir A. WILSON: I should not have risen had not certain remarks which fell from my lips on Second Reading been made the subject of discussion by two hon. Members. The hon. and gallant Member for Blackburn (Captain Elliston) had something to say with regard to Billingsgate, and he really substantially made my case for me. But I would like to take this opportunity of withdrawing the statement that I made, that Billingsgate added something like 25 per cent. to the cost of all fish passing through it. I understand it is not as much as 25 per cent., but how much less it is I do not know. It may be 12 per cent. or 20 per cent. It is certain, however, from the accumulated reports of a dozen different departmental and local committees that Billingsgate is a menace to the prosperity of the retail fish trade of London and the vicinity. Less fish is passing through it than formerly. Whether the Government should give them the Custom House, or whether the Custom House, at present congested, should be given Billingsgate, we cannot discuss on this Bill, and I have not the smallest intention of continuing any observations on Billingsgate except to express the hope that the Government will take the matter up seriously.
My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) in his peroration had something to say concerning a comparison between the pin and needle and brass button trade of Birmingham and
the herring trade. It would be an effective point were it not for the fact that we are eating more fish to-day than at any time in our history, but less herring. We are producing more fish, and consuming more, and we are employing more men in the trade as a whole than we were 10 years ago. It is a change in public taste to a great extent, and a defect in marketing arrangements. Upon that subject I am in entire agreement with the hon. Baronet the Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel). Marketing is the main cause. There are not great prospects in the foreign market. I believe there are great changes of taste taking place abroad as well.
As for the local market, the remedy is not, unfortunately, in the hands of the herring industry, but in the hands of local authorities. The hawker, as the hon. Member for Lowestoft said, is the one person who can bring fresh fish to the doors of our people, and unless we can induce the hawker to come back, whether by modification of the Act of 1872 or by inducing local authorities not to be quite so difficult under the Public Health Acts of 1925 and 1930, which are also a deterrent in certain areas, we shall not get fish back into the homes of the people. The fishmonger, against whom I have not a word to say, cannot handle perishable fish in great quantities, and get it to the door of every house in a large town. The hawker used to do that, and we ought to try to get him back. I sit down, as the hon. Baronet the Member for Farnham rose, full of hope without expectation as to the probable result of this Bill, with a genuine desire to see it work, and an earnest hope that it will take the shortest cut to success, namely, by leaving undone many of the things which it is authorised to do by Clause 7.

1.23 p.m.

Sir JOHN PYBUS: I want to refer to one point that affects a certain port in Scotland and certain ports on the East Coast of England—ports such as Brightlingsea in my own division. It is with regard to that junior member of the herring family, the sprat. My question is whether the Minister will not include sprats in the Bill. I do not know whether the Ministry of Fisheries are prepared to settle the exact relationship of the sprat and the herring. The difficulties of glut, of marketing and of
finance, are the same in each case. If it were possible to include the sprat in the Bill it would be a very great benefit to the ports I have mentioned, and in particular, Brightlingsea.

1.24 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): At the very last moment the hon. Baronet the Member for Harwich (Sir J. Pybus) has asked me to introduce sprats. No doubt he has fully considered the great advantage of the Bill to the herring industry, but I fear that at this moment I cannot give him any undertaking in the direction desired. This Debate, like all debates on the Bill, has been characterised by the desire of members in all parts of the House to assist the industry and to assist the Government with the Bill. I am very anxious to pay a public tribute to the valuable assistance we have had from members during the several stages of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) asked me a specific question, whether I could give hon. Members a definite undertaking that questions dealing with compensation and arbitration, especially affecting the interests of the small individuals around the coast, could be considered in detail under the scheme. I very readily give him that undertaking and I feel sure myself that, even if I did not give him that undertaking, the board itself would see that the interests of the small men round our coast were safeguarded.
Several questions have been put to me but with the permission of hon. Members I will concentrate on one or two of the larger issues which have been raised. The hon. Baronet the Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel) said that he was full of hope, although he had certain doubts as to the success which this measure might bring to the industry. He struck the right note, however, when he concentrated on the provision in Clause 3, paragraph (a) relating to the promotion of sales and market development as being fundamental in connection with the powers of the board. It was because my right hon. Friend and I considered that it was essential in the ultimate interest of the industry, that
there should be increased sales and increased market development that those particular points were put into the foreground of the proposals.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Can my right hon. Friend indicate the type of man he has in mind in connection with the appointment of the two independent members who are to deal with sales and the development of markets? That will have to be a whole time job and their choice represents the most important part of the scheme.

Sir G. COLLINS: I realise that the House is naturally anxious as to the choice by the responsible Ministers of the independent members who are to be appointed to the board, and I can assure the House that very serious consideration will be given to that matter and to all the points which have been raised in that connection. If I do not, this afternoon, endeavour to sketch out in detail the type of individual who will be appointed in due time to the board, I hope the House will not think that that is out of any lack of respect to them. I will only say that we realise the grave responsibility which the House has entrusted to us in this matter, and we hope that when we submit these names to the House and the public, both the House and the public will find that we have chosen individuals who are deserving of their confidence. The hon. Member for Farnham said that sales and increased sales were what was necessary and many other hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have also dwelt upon that matter. While they were speaking in that strain there occurred to me a sentence from a book which is no doubt known to many hon. Members "The Letters of a Self-made Merchant to his Son." The keynote of the merchant's letters to his son was "What we want are orders." There was a constant repetition of that theme in his advice and I suggest that that would be a suitable keynote for the work of the board when it comes into operation.
It must be left to the judgment of the board where markets are to be found. The world is a potential market for all British products as well as the herring which are caught in the North Sea, and how wide
that market may be, depends not only on world conditions but on the ability of the individuals chosen by the board to push the sale of herring in various parts of the world. The right hon. baronet the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) made some comment upon Government policy and the difficulties which have existed during the last one or two years. I feel quite sure that my hon. and gallant Friend the Minister for Oversea Trade, good Scotsman as he is, does and will at all times endeavour by every possible legitimate method to push the sale of herring in the markets of the world. May I remind the right hon. baronet that my hon. and gallant Friend has already given instructions to his representatives in many foreign countries to inquire as to the possibility of increasing the sales of herring to those countries. A trade agreement has just been concluded with Poland although it is not yet signed, and when it has been signed and is submitted to the judgment of the House I am sure it, will be found that the interests of the fishermen have been fully considered.
Let me mention some of the steps which have been taken during recent weeks to ensure that the work of the board will be pushed forward immediately when this measure comes into operation. During the last few weeks information has been collected with regard to drifters and curers and also as to the stocks of nets in the manufacturers' hands and the output and capacity of factories. Steps are also being taken for the organisation of staff for survey purposes and on Monday week an official from the Board of Trade will proceed to the various ports to make a report on that very important matter. The House is aware of the conversations and consultations which have taken place during the last two weeks with representatives of the industry. Their advice and assistance have been of great value to the Ministers concerned. Further, we have had inquiries made as to the accommodation for the board in buildings and as to the staff which they may require. The House will also observe that on Monday next there is to be presented a first supplementary estimate to implement the Government's undertaking in this Bill, and I would draw attention to the fact that in that estimate there is a sum of
£1,000 for general administration and £1,000 for the preliminary services in connection with the operation of this scheme.
I only mention those items to show the fixed determination of the Government to allow as short a time as possible to elapse before the Bill is brought into operation. During the Committee stage of the Bill I ventured to sketch out a timetable, and I am glad to be able to say at this final stage of the Bill in the House of Commons that that time-table is still strictly accurate. If the House this afternoon sees fit to grant the Third Reading of the Bill, it may be possible in another place to take the Second Reading at a very early date. I have indicated the steps which the Government and its officials are taking to enable the board, once it is appointed, to get into its stride without delay. The Bill itself is just a piece of machinery which has been devised by the wisdom of Parliament to start this work and supported as it is by an adequate supply of public finance, it ought to achieve that object. When the work goes forward, then the destiny of the industry will be in the hands of the board though it will also depend on something which is far beyond the board's powers namely the state of the world's markets.
I am sure that anything which this country can do by securing peace abroad or by any other methods to obtain a larger share of international trade generally will be done and that much may be hoped for from this board with its ability, and with the assistance which has been so readily and, if I may say so, so generously granted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in placing this large sum at its disposal. That is a very clear and striking indication of the fact that the Government are ready to-day to take every possible step to secure the increased prosperity of this industry and the future prosperity of those men whose claims have always met with a warm response in the House of Commons. With these few remarks, and knowing as I do that this Measure commends itself not only to the minds, but to the hearts of the House of Commons, I ask that it may now be given its Third Reading.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Sir A. Lambert Ward.]

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

1.36 p.m.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I wish to explain that this is a consolidation Bill and a consolidation Bill only. All that it does is to put into one Bill what at present is scattered among a very large number of Acts. That is a procedure which facilitates the task of everyone who has to administer the Act; of those affected by it, and of hon. and right hon. Members of this House who may wish to criticise the existing law. As the House knows, there is a Joint Committee of the two Houses set up which examines these Bills to see that they are consolidation and consolidation only, and that Committee presented its report in respect of this Bill on, I think, the 12th February.

1.37 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: We put down a Motion for the rejection of this Bill for two reasons. One was in connection with a legal point which was raised by some of our friends and which we considered of some importance. That point has been discussed with the authorities of the House who deal with these matters, and we have come to the conclusion that there is no reason why I should raise it here this afternoon. But I want to raise another and rather more important point. We are not against the consolidation of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, though we would have preferred that they should have been consolidated in simpler language, if that had been possible, and along the lines suggested by the writer in the "Times" this morning. The legal jargon that is put into Acts of Parliament very often
requires legal minds to interpret it, and these Acts dealing with unemployment insurance and the treatment of unemployment generally are even now, in this consolidation Bill, not exactly simple for ordinary people to understand.
I am perfectly aware that it is too much to hope that the legal profession should give up the right to deal with these matters in, shall I say, the un-understandable manner that they do. I remember well that on the first Health Insurance Act, or else it was the first Unemployment Insurance Act, the first thing that the Solicitor-General of that day did was to take a case to the courts to ask what the Act which he had helped to pass really meant. I have great respect for the legal profession, because one of my best friends on this bench is a leading member of the Bar. All the same, I wish it had been possible to simplify the Acts and boil them down still more than they have been, so that ordinary people could have understood them more clearly. I intended to say this and I am fortified in saying it by the letter which, as I say, appears in the "Times" of this morning.
But it is a much more serious matter that we want to raise. There have been two speeches, anyhow one rather notable speech, in this House by an hon. Member who is not here, and therefore I will not mention who it was, in which it was stated categorically that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) was responsible for the poor law means test because he had introduced it into this House. I asked that hon. Member privately, as I did not want to interrupt him when the speech was being made, what authority there was for that statement, and the authority adduced was the Act which consolidated the poor law. I should not have troubled very much about it, because there are many things connected with the legal procedure of this House of which most of us are quite [ignorant, but the hon. Member who made that speech called in aid another hon. Member, one of the most prominent King's Counsel in this House, who sits on the Government benches. That hon. and learned Gentleman repeated to me the statement and maintained it in face of the fact that I tried to explain what a consolidation
Bill of this kind really was. He still maintained that we could, if we had liked, in a consolidating Bill have repealed certain portions of the Acts which were being consolidated. I always understood—and I want the learned Solicitor-General to deal with the point—that when you consolidated Acts of Parliament you were not allowed to repeal portions and you were not allowed to alter them in any way, and I want that to be categorically stated to-day.
I am not going to drag in the King Charles' head of what I may or may not have said on the means test, but there is a matter of honour, if the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour will allow me to use that word again, that ought to exist among politicians, especially on a matter of fact and not a matter of opinion. We may, and we do, disagree thoroughly on matters of opinion, but it does seem to me rather dishonourable, to use a very mild expression, that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen should attribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, when they are speaking in the country, the authorship of the poor law means test. And it was done in this House. I do not think the Minister of Labour was here when I started this speech, but an hon. Member made that statement—

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I was not denying it.

Mr. LANSBURY: I feel that that is so politically dishonest a statement that it ought to be cleared up in regard to this Bill, because if that is going to be maintained, then we shall have to fight the Third Reading of this Bill as hard as ever we can, though we know very well that if we rejected this Bill altogether, the Acts would remain just as they are. You would not get rid of them. Until this is passed, the original Acts remain, and it is a fact—at least, we thought it was, and I am asking the learned Solicitor-General to say what is the fact—that the Committee stage of this Bill is a purely formal stage, exactly like that of the Appropriation Bill. We are not in a position to move out clauses or to deal with the various Acts by repealing them, nor can we add to them. I feel very strongly about this matter because of the use that is being made of a perfectly simple constitutional piece of procedure on the part of my right hon. Friend
in the Labour Government. I am not sure that we even prepared all that consolidation measure ourselves; I rather fancy it was started when we came into office. However, it was a good thing that the poor law was consolidated. It is now more understandable than it was before, and the present Bill will be of considerable help, even though it is not exactly as one would like to have it, but, so far as these Acts can be consolidated, it is a good Bill under present conditions. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will clear up the point once and for all that he himself in bringing in this Bill is not adding to or taking away, and cannot add to or take away, from the existing law, I shall be obliged. If his answer is as I hope it will be, the Bill can get its Second Reading and the other stages without further opposition.

1.47 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I have gone through this consolidation measure very carefully because, when I got hold of it during the week, I wondered what was happening. I had not heard of it before, and anything that comes from the House of Lords at once moves me to antagonism. However, on examination I find it puts together the provisions of unemployment legislation and repeals eleven Acts. It also repeals Part I of the Act of 1934. It is a comprehensive measure and will be very helpful to Members. When we are questioned about any particular provision, we shall now find it more easily and shall not have to go through a whole series of Acts in order to find it.
There are things in this Bill, however, which we in this party have fought against all along. Take for example; Clause 22, which lays down the statutory conditions under which a man shall claim his right to benefit. It is the 30-stamps qualification. Everyone knows that we on these benches object to that. In accepting this Measure as a comprehensive measure which, for the moment, cannot be altered, one does not want it to go forward that we are agreeing in principle to any provisions like that. It is easy to urge against us afterwards, when we are declaiming against the Government and urging that people should be entitled to out of work pay without any conditions at all, that on Friday afternoon, the 22nd February, Members of our party agreed
to a measure that embraced this particular provision. We find that some hon. Members opposite make use of that kind of argument, and it puts us in a very ill light when we have to explain how it happened and how Parliamentary procedure is run. I feel that I ought not to vote against this Measure in view of the fact that it puts all unemployment legislation in a convenient form, but I want, with my right hon. Friend, to put on record that, in accepting this Bill, we are not agreeing to many of the provisions contained in it.

1.50 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I associate myself with the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), but I find myself in somewhat stronger opposition to this Bill. Failing some satisfaction from the Government on the difficulties that I feel, I shall be compelled to record a vote against it. Like other parties in the House to-day, my party is just a little short of its ordinary numerical strength, and if the matter went to a Division I do not think I should be in a position to supply the necessary number of Tellers, unless I could count on the kindness of Members of other parties. But that would not preclude me in the absence of some satisfaction from the Government, of recording my opposition to the Measure. My objection is on the ground that has been stated by the right hon. Gentleman, that we have had experience of people being made responsible for the substance of a consolidation Bill. We have been accused of approving all the matters contained in it because, as it was a consolidation Bill, we did not actively dissent from it. The person who introduces that type of argument into parliamentary discussion does a very grave disservice to the House. We cannot allow ourselves to be placed in a position of that sort again. I do not approve of the existing unemployment insurance legislation. I think in practically every particular it is bad, and I certainly cannot allow myself to be put in the position of seeming to approve of it, even in a tentative fashion, to-day.
My bigger objection is this. I cannot imagine a more unsuitable time for bringing forward a Bill to consolidate unemployment insurance legislation. The
assumption always underlies a consolidation Bill that you have reached something like stability; that you have got to a stage when the body of law on a particular subject is of such a standard and such general acceptation, that it is now suitable to place it in a more permanent form and to collect all the various instalments and put them into one Act of Parliament, and say, "Here we have a standard work which defines unemployment insurance legislation for at least some considerable time in the future." Does anyone in the House, does the Minister of Labour or the Solicitor-General suggest, after the experience of the last three or four weeks, that unemployment insurance is now on what can be regarded as a permanent level? It was never in a state of greater flux than just now. It is true that the controversies of the last few weeks related more to the operations of the Unemployment Assistance Board than to unemployment insurance, but under the Act which set up that Board we also set up the Statutory Insurance Committee, which in a short time will come forward with proposals for including agricultural workers and others in unemployment insurance, and if those proposals are accepted by the House they will become definitely part of the whole body of unemployment insurance legislation.
Am I to pass a consolidating Measure to-day which will be out of date in a month or so? It is preposterous. Does the Minister think that even the question of the 30 contributions raised by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) is settled for all time? Does anyone believe that the division of the unemployed into two categories, those who are insured and those who come under public assistance, is accepted by any large section of the community as a permanent arrangement? My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has already protested against the establishment of a class of "untouchables" to be permanently in a lower caste than the average members of the working class, and that view is very widely held. Does anyone think the mass of the people regard it as a permanent state of affairs that one lot of people should be in unemployment insurance and others out-
side? In any case it is singularly inappropriate for this Government in its dying days, to bring forward a consolidating Bill. It is obvious to anyone who is watching public affairs that, whatever leading spokesmen of the Government may say at meetings about going on and on and on, and for a long, long time, it is on its last legs, and that the new Government will take its place. I hope I am not wrong in assuming that whatever Government succeeds it there will be drastic changes in the whole position of unemployment insurance such as will make this consolidating Bill of February, 1935, a back number and of no use for the purpose.
With the hon. Member for Leigh, I like to get my Parliamentary information in the easiest possible form. Perhaps that desire is stronger with me than with the majority of Members. I do not like to have to go messing through ten different volumes to get one piece of information. I wish one could get a little handbook containing the whole law, a Parliamentary encyclopaedia of 100 pages or so. That would suit me, absolutely; but I should want to know when consulting such a volume that I was getting real up-to-date information; and I am sure that this consolidating Bill will not serve the purpose of the hon. Member for Leigh for more than a relatively short time. At one time in my career I endeavoured to study law, and I know how law students always like to get little compendiums like "All about the Criminal Law for 6d." Parliamentarians have a similar desire; but anyone who is preparing to face the House of Commons or a board of examiners wants to be reasonably assured that the little compendium does contain it all. This compendium of unemployment insurance will not contain it all for more than a few months. I have talked about the next Government making sweeping changes, but the present Government, if it continues for a few months more, will be making additions or subtractions from the existing unemployment insurance legislation. For these reasons I propose to enter my opposition to this Second Reading. I have been studying Erskine May about procedure on consolidation Bills, and I agree that the right hon. Gentleman seems to be right in saying that the power of amendment and opposition are very
limited. During the week-end, however, I shall engage in a little further study of the question, and reserve the rights of myself and my colleagues to further opposition at other stages; but in the meantime, unless I receive satisfaction from the Solicitor-General, or whoever is to speak for the Government, I enter my opposition at this stage.

2.1 p.m.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: Hon. and right hon. Members opposite are very much afraid that in consenting to the Second Reading of this Measure they are consenting to the retention of the means test.

Mr. LANSBURY: And many other things.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: And other points. The general opinion is that the party opposite are at any rate equally responsible with the party on this side for the means test.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): On a consolidation Bill we cannot go into the merits or demerits of the Statutes which are already on the Statute Book. I allowed the leader of the Opposition to go on because he raised a perfectly legitimate point, namely, whether by agreeing to a consolidation Bill hon. Members are responsible for its contents; but a consolidation Bill can do nothing except to state the existing law. Whether this Bill were passed or not would not in any way alter the law as regards unemployment insurance, nor alter the existence of the means test or anything else to which hon. Members could object.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: I bow to your ruling, but surely the right hon. Gentleman went a little further than that. However, I leave that point. I would only ask whether the Anomalies Act is not in-chided in this Bill, and for that Act the party opposite is responsible.

2.3 p.m.

Dr. O'DONOVAN: One little touch of human nature makes the whole House kin. That the Eon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has suffered under political misrepresentation through supporting consolidation Bills in the past makes us all feel great sympathy towards him, hut there is no Member who has
not been subjected to what he regards as political misrepresentation by those who, at political meetings, consider themselves his legitimate critics.

Mr. MAXTON: I make no complaint; I like it.

Dr. O'DONOVAN: It is strange that the hon. Member likes it, but has used up our time on a quiet Friday afternoon on a Consolidation Bill to show us his bleeding heart, and to say that he really cannot have anything to do with a Bill which is subjecting him and his tenderest feelings to the risk of misrepresentation at public meetings. Those of us who have given support to consolidating Bills and other Bills must take the rough with the smooth. If political fortunes can be advanced by misrepresentation, unquestionably political adventurers will take advantage of the opportunity, and it cannot be helped; but I can assure the hon. Member for Bridgeton that he will have the sympathy for which he has appealed in full measure, pressed down and running over. He has referred in his speech to leading politicians and their ways. Unquestionably leading politicians do go on and on when they are referring to consolidating Bills, or any other sort of Bill, at meetings outside this House as well as in here. In certain newspapers with a fair circulation I have seen the hon. Member referred to as a leading politician, and I am certain' that he is a leading case of going on and on and up and up almost without limit. Even in this House we have heard him, with pleasure, go on and on, and we have listened on and on, wondering where he was coming to—

Mr. MAXTON: But I have never gone up and up.

Dr. O'DONOVAN: I accept his interruption. He has gone on and on towards that happy land far far away while we have remained here, on this terrestrial domain. He has said that the world is divided into touchables and untouchables, but there is a certain amount of indecision in his mind as to who should be the untouchables. I understand that under this consolidation Bill you can be untouchable either because you are an insured person out of benefit or because you are suffering from a certain political depravity. I understand that Members who support the Government are, in the
minds of many other people, quite untouchable; some of them because of an oppressive Tory type of mind—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think the hon. Member's line of argument has anything to do with the Bill.

Dr. O'DONOVAN: I accept your correction in a filial spirit, Sir, but I have said all that need be said upon that point. In regard to this consolidation measure, I wonder whether the hon. Member for Bridgeton was thoroughly sincere in one reason he gave for opposing the Bill. He said that it represented a state of things that would not last. On the other hand, if he wished to dispose of many Bills to which he has a sincere objection, and if this opportunity were taken to have the whole of those Bills put together into one measure, when that time came, either for advance or retrogression—I do not pre-judge that issue—he would only have to deal with one consolidated Bill, instead of wasting five or six years of his time in government departments making his own consolidated Bill after which he would endeavour to enter upon a new world. One of the beauties of the English people is that they effect improvements without making any show of well doing—

Mr. MAXTON: I am Scottish.

Dr. O'DONOVAN: I am sorry, but I lost that important observation; but it will be recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT for my instruction to-morrow. I was saying that the English people are a modest folk who do not advertise their well doing. Were we French we would be lost in admiration of, and we would make many references to, the Code Napoleon. We would say "How simple is French law." Every Frenchman who is in trouble turns to the Code Napoleon in order to give instructions to his solicitor, but English law is mostly case law, and we have nothing like the Code Napoleon. Since I have been in this House I have watched English lawyers build up consolidation Bill after consolidation Bill so that uninstructed Members of Parliament could find out where they are, not with the help of sixpenny compendiums, but with the help of consolidation Bills which they can
obtain free of charge from the Vote Office. This consolidation Bill on unemployment insurance tells us where we are, and from it we can proceed to better times or we can smash up what exists. Whether hon. Member's approve of unemployment insurance or not, the Bill deserves the support of everybody in the House.

2.9 p.m.

The SOLICTOR-GENERAL: Speaking on behalf of the Government, I am grateful to the leader of the Opposition and other hon. Members who have spoken for the points that have been raised. As I understand your ruling, Sir, there are only two issues which are relevant; one, whether this is an appropriate time for consolidation and the other, raised by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), what is involved in moving or accepting a Consolidation Bill. I will take the first point first. I have on previous occasions unsuccessfully tried to put arguments to the hon. Member for Bridgeton, but I am going to try again, and I do not despair. I think that he is wrong in suggesting that consolidation is a process which it is right to go through only when you think the law has reached a position of stability. When you are deciding whether it is right to consolidate you do not look ahead, but backwards. If you find that any branch of the law is in such a tangle of statutes and is spread over a period of years in such a way that unless you are highly skilled in that law it is almost impossible to find out what the law is, you consolidate. It may be a branch of the law which everybody contemplates will be altered and amended year by year, but you consolidate whatever may be the outlook and the expectation as to the future.
The hon. Member entered upon the realm of political prophecy. Let me make a prophecy which is as likely as his to come true, let me assume that next year he finds himself Minister of Labour in a Liberal Government—

Mr. MAXTON: Repeat that outside.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: And that he desired to make the sort of changes which he undoubtedly would make in our unemployment law. I am certain that he would find this measure the greatest possible convenience and boon to him. One can imagine a state of affairs, which is not
at all unusual, of the Government desiring to change a law which they knew they must consolidate in order get the whole of it into one Act, before being able to go ahead and make their changes.

Mr. MAXTON: If I were introducing legislation and approaching the subject from an entirely new point of view, would it not be sufficient to put a schedule to the Bill saying that all previous legislation was repealed?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: My hon. Friend will, I am sure, follow my argument. All I said was that it is not an argument against consolidation that you may later want to amend the law, and that on the other hand the amendment and alteration which you may want to make may well be such that it is inevitable that you should consolidate before you go ahead. I want to make my hon. Friend feel that for once he is on a really bad point. There is no implication, when this or any branch of our law is consolidated, that you have reached stability and any Government would be failing in their obligations if in any branch of our law, they left the law scattered among 10, 12 or perhaps 20 statutes, many of which were amended in part or repealed in part, and which made a jigsaw puzzle which had to be gone through before anybody could arrive at a conclusion as to what the law was. I hope the hon. Member will consider that argument, and will withdraw his opposition on that ground.
So far as the other point is concerned, you, Sir, in your ruling, really stated the position, and I have very little to add to it. I would associate myself with what has been said in different quarters of the House, that it is important that it should be stated in the clearest possible terms that when a consolidation Bill comes before the House the only issue is; Shall the law be consolidated, and that the issue is quite definitely not, Do we all approve of the terms of the laws which are consolidated? It would be most unfortunate if in this very necessary process of consolidation, that were not made as clear as words can make it. What applies to the Bill applies equally to another consolidation which has been
referred to as a great piece of work, the consolidation of the public health law which was introduced during the time of the late Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) brought that Bill before the House and said that he was not asking the approval of the House or of his party to the various measures which it contained, but he was only asking the House: Do you agree that this branch of our law should be consolidated? I hope I have made that clear enough, and covered the points he raised, and I trust that my right hon. Friend will now allow the Bill to be read a Second time.

2.15 p.m.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: May I submit that the consolidation of a number of Statutes which are spread over a series of years is very much like making an index of the law?

2.16 p.m.

Mr. THORP: May I ask one question about this Bill? It is primarily a consolidation Bill. As I understand it, it is to repeal certain Acts and re-enact them so that they can all be found in one Act; but in the Schedules one can see that it does not accomplish this very laudable object. It only repeals parts of Acts here and there, and I do think it would be of great assistance to everyone concerned if all the Acts of Parliament, instead of being consolidated in part, could be consolidated in whole.

Question, "That the Bill be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Sir G. Penny.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question, put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 2.

Adjourned at Eighteen Minutes after Two o'Clock until Monday next, 25th February.